2.
Local Governance, democracy and representationThe appropriate role of the public as regards their participation in the democraticsystem has been conceptualised by democratic theorists in a variety of different ways;from merely electing political representatives every few years, to extensive day to daycitizen participation in decision-making in government structures. Portrayals ofrepresentative (liberal) democracy or participatory (direct) democracy tend toconceptually juxtapose the role of public participation. This dichotomy is often referredto as the fundamental axis of democratic theory (Barber, 1984; Dryzek, 1990).Representation is intimately linked to participation and cannot be merely confined todiscussions of representative democracy as more participatory forms of governanceoften invoke notions of representation albeit explicitly or implicitly. For example,Gaventa, (2004:6) highlights how, “one of the assumptions of participatory forms of governance and development is that greater participation will allow more inclusive inputs into decision making processes, which in turn will lead to better decisions. At the heart of this assumption is a link between participation and representation, such that greater participation will lead to better, more informed forms of representation”.This assumption seems to be at the heart of the push towards creating moreparticipatory spaces at the governance level. Although seemingly straightforward inlogic, this presumption has proved extremely problematic in terms of what happens onthe ground within these participatory spaces. Increased participation has been provedtime and time again to not correspond with increased representation of a wide varietyof social groups within these spaces. This chapter presents empirical research findingslooking at how conceptions and perceptions of representation were evoked by keyplayers and community representatives in two participatory spaces. How key playersview ‘representatives’ as either ‘activists’ or the ‘true community’ is discussed.Consensus, conflict and the representation of minority groups were also issuesprevalent in both case studies as was gatekeeping and the tension between widerrepresentation and depth of knowledge.Methodology 2

3.
At the level of practice participatory spaces have been examined within two mainbodies of academic literature, development studies and urban regeneration in the U.K.These two bodies of literature, however for the most part remain separate despite thesimilarity of themes and issues concerning participatory spaces. Recognition of thepossible benefits of bringing together these two bodies of literature in an assessment ofparticipatory spaces prompted the rationale for a cross-national comparative researchstudy spanning the global ‘North’ and ‘South’. This article is based on empiricalresearch findings that formed part of cross-national doctoral research at theneighbourhood level in a) a New Deal for Communities Regeneration Programme(NDC) in the North of England and b) the Participatory Budgeting Process (PB), inPorto Alegre, Brazil. The specific case studies within these participatory spheres werechosen to provide an in-depth exploration of the functioning of the participatoryprocesses at the neighbourhood level.1The NDC regeneration programme is a high profile initiative that was launched in 1998by the New Labour Government aiming to tackle social exclusion and bring aboutneighbourhood renewal in 39 of Britain’s most deprived neighbourhoods. The NDCregeneration programme was chosen as an exciting example of communityparticipation in the U.K (Lawless, 2004). It puts ‘communities’ at the heart ofneighbourhood renewal in an unprecedented manner in terms of resource allocation andprogramme design (Foley and Martin, 2000).2 The PB process was chosen as aninternationally recognised participatory process that linked decision-making toimplementation in the Brazilian context (Abers, 1998). Within Latin America the PBprocess is cited as one of the most successful examples of community involvement inresource allocation (Souza, 2001). The process centres on an annual cycle whichcombines elements of representative and participatory democracy to decide priorities1 This was as oppose to being representative of either the a) the participatory process or widerprogramme or b) the region in which they were operating.2 See Foley and Martin (2000:483/4) for a thorough description of the policy design elements of theprogramme which encourage community participation. These include among others: longer lead intime to develop bids, local community input selection of target areas and development of programme. 3

4.
for investments at the neighbourhood level and leads to the development of a citywideinvestment plan.The study took the form of qualitative research based on 56 in depth semi-structuredinterviews focusing on the experiences of key players and community representativeswithin two neighbourhoods that formed part of these participatory processes. 3 Theprinciple research questions that defined the study were how are participatory spacesconceived and perceived? and how are these spaces organised and occupied? Thefieldwork lasted a period of fifteen months and was comprised of three distinct stages.Within both case studies the same research methods were employed. Semi-structuredinterviews were the main method of data collection however elements of ethnographyand participant observation formed part of the broader research strategy. It is theanalysis of the semi-structured interviews that this article is based on. All interviewswere taped and transcribed those conducted in the Porto Alegre case study wereadditionally translated.4 This chapter presents the findings of analysis of the four datasets, i.e. interview transcripts with key players and community representatives in bothcase studies and questions the straightforward link between participation andrepresentation.The question of representation within these participatory spaces is of primaryimportance on numerous different levels.5 My empirical research in both contextsshowed the importance that the concept of ‘representation’ wielded to both key players3 The interviews were therefore divided into four data subsets, community representatives, and keyplayers in each case study.4 Unfortunately there is not room here to discuss the methodological and linguistic implications ofconducting half of the fieldwork in a non-native language (in this case Portuguese). The validity of theresearch findings could to some degree be based on a recognition of this limitation as equivalence inlanguage competence (which could be seen as the optimum for a study of this nature) was no wherenear achieved.5 Ideas of representation within participatory spaces are usually linked to the very basic researchquestion, ‘Who participates within these participatory spaces?’. This is usually researched by utilisinga survey method which charts the biographical characteristics of who is involved, i.e. what socialgroup do participants belong? What is the income band of participants? What is their gender? How oldare participants? Although these questions are extremely important when looking at the concept ofrepresentation, what I am more concerned with is how the concept of ‘representation’ is interpretedand utilised differently by key players and community representatives within these participatoryspaces. 4

5.
and community representatives in these spaces. However this concept was interpreted,explained, enacted and implemented in extremely different ways. The notion ofrepresentation was explained with implicit reference to a variety of differentdemocratic ‘models’, including more traditional ideas commonly associated withrepresentative democracy, to ideas that could be interpreted as pertaining to a more‘direct democratic’ form.6 ‘Representation’ in both case studies varied dramatically, interms of confused conceptions of representation in the NDC case study, and a lack of aclear institutional process of representation, to a very clear conception and institutionalprocess of representation in the PB case study. My research highlighted the importanceof recognising how, the concept of ‘representation’ was utilised by key players in bothcase studies as a discursive strategy. This seemed to enable them to either legitimisethe outcomes of the participatory processes or to crucially dismiss the input ofcommunity representatives within these arenas, as essentially ‘unrepresentative’. Atthe same time however, key players also portrayed the ‘community’ they wished toengage as a homogenous entity in the NDC case study. This seemed to complementideas of consensus that were seen to mitigate against the representation of minoritygroups in the participatory space.7Community Representatives ideas of Representation in the NDC Case StudyIn the NDC case study the idea of representation was given great importance bycommunity representatives, however, a lack of clarity about how representation wasactually exercised in practice seemed to underlie the majority of interpretations. Onecommunity representative Alice Farmer, recognised the importance of the concept, interms of the procedural necessity to ‘represent someone’ on the variety of boards shebelongs to. However, she seemed to lack a consistent view of whom she felt she wasrepresenting within the participatory space, or why indeed it was necessary to represent6 For example, ‘representation’ from a liberal democratic theory has been associated with the idea thatonce a representative has been elected, the power of decision-making by the masses has beensurrendered to the elected representative. This is in stark contrast to ‘representation’ in directdemocratic terms, whereby the ‘representative’ should merely act as a delegate (not putting forwardtheir own viewpoint), by transmitting the ideas and decisions taken at lower levels of the polity, to ahigher level.7 This was true of the NDC case study, but was not articulated as a problem in the PB case study. 5

6.
someone. It was almost as if representing different bodies within these participatoryspaces had become some sort of vacuous formal ritual, that had to be adhered to, toenable individual participation; “the neighbourhood support fund…so I represent them, for the resident’s association, and I represent the resident’s association at the consortium, so this is what you have to do, represent somebody, so I, but I could represent the bowls club at the consortium.”Individual community representatives possessed extremely different ideas of whatrepresentation meant and this was seen to be indicative of the lack of a concreteinstitutional process of representation. Community representatives had arrived at theboard through a variety of different ways, which could be seen to crucially undermineany concrete notion of representation within this sphere. As Jim Crossley explains, “Everybody represented somebody different…. …em, I always felt superior to some of the board members because I’d actually gone out on a night at the resident’s association and been elected by the residents, where as some of them wasn’t, some of them were just there because no-body could be bothered to vote, or had been there, and voted themselves on……”This not only highlights the problematic nature of the lack of a clear institutionalmechanism/ process of choosing representatives, but it also demonstrates how this lackof process can have a detrimental effect on the perceptions of how communityrepresentatives view their contemporaries within these spheres. It would seem that thiscould potentially have a destabilising effect by legitimising some communityrepresentatives at the expense of others. Representation was also explained to me bycommunity representatives in this case study from a variety of different perspectives.These explanations encompassed an assortment of elements of implicit references to awide range of diverse democratic models. For example, one community representativearticulated his role in terms of how, ideally it would involve merely transmitting theideas of the residents to the decision making forum. Here, he seems to referring to amore direct democratic model, “I mean as an elected member you’re not supposed toput your view across, you’re supposed to put the views of the residents”. This can be 6

7.
seen in stark contrast to another community representative, Alan Greendale, who linksideas of representation to ideas of ‘resident led’. Resident led is not explained in termsof ‘resident’ led as oppose to ‘professional’ led, which is the usual interpretation of theterm but resident ‘led’. This conception is congruent with the U.K. governmentemphasis within participation in regeneration on community ‘leaders’. Thus, he isechoing ideas about resident and community ‘leadership’, which can be seen to be atthe opposite end of the spectrum to ideas of accountability of communityrepresentatives to the wider community. He explains that after a long process ofresident consultation, one resident complained that there had been enough consultation,and they wanted to see results, “…I remember a resident, “come to my door, and tell me you’ve done that”, you know and from that I took it that, well, the residents who are on the board, the resident directors all have portfolios, and they follow whoever’s portfolio they have….so it was very important to maintain that resident led, to stop consulting at some time…”Community Representatives ideas of Representation in the PB Case StudyThese confused conceptions of representation articulated by community representativeswere in stark contrast to the coherent view of representation that was presented in thePB case study by community representatives. In this case study communityrepresentatives explained their role as ‘representatives’ within these spheres in amanner that could be seen as echoing or at least reflecting the concrete institutionalmechanisms of participation. The rationale for this specific process of participation isintricately linked with how community representatives articulated and explained theirrole as representatives within this sphere. For example, one communityrepresentative, Raul de Silva, precisely explains whom he represents in the differentforums and why, “the councillor, has the role of organising the meetings for the FROP, the councillor has the obligation to take part in the meetings of the COP, and to also attend the demands of the region…I as a councillor, although I live in Vila Figueira…the person who has to demand for Vila Figueira is the president, and that’s why I can’t be president of the association…the president of the Vila will 7

8.
have a conflict of interests…I represent the region…so there doesn’t exist a tension,… you can’t be a councillor of Vila Figueira, you are a councillor of the region.”He is extremely clear of who he represents within the COP. He is a representative ofthe region, not merely his neighbourhood. He explains this clarity in institutionalterms, i.e. it is not possible within the process, to both be president of the residents’association and a regional representative within the COP. He explains the reasonsbehind this institutional development in terms of it being developed to avoid a ‘conflictof interests’. This is echoed by another community representative who explains his rolein relation to representation in very similar terms, “..the role of the councillor the role, the delegate, when you go to FROP it’s to represent your community, the councillor through the COP is to represent your region, I wasn’t in the COP there, representing the interests of Cruzeiro do Sul, I was representing the interests of the almost 40 associations, organised in Grande Cruzeiro, so the responsibility is much greater. The role of the councillor is to deliberate.. the plan of investments, … how much the Local Government will spend in public works. So we go there and decide where the resources go, how much, how much goes to each region”This clarity of ‘representation’ can to some degree be attributed to the size of theparticipatory process and its systematic nature. The process is citywide, based on anannual cycle, with very concrete institutional mechanisms and therefore it is a lot easierfor community representatives to locate themselves and explain their role as arepresentative within this broader picture. Community representatives clearlyarticulated the position they occupied, their role and who they were representing in thiscase study.Key Players Views of Representation in terms of ‘Activists’ vs the ‘TrueCommunity’ in NDC and the PB processInterestingly in both case studies, key players seemed to oscillate between seeingcommunity representatives as an unrepresentative elite and utilising the ideas of‘community representativeness’ to legitimate the decision making/ outcomes of the 8

9.
participatory processes. That only a small percentage of the ‘potential’ communitywanted to be involved was identified in both case studies by key players as a realchallenge to the evolution of the participatory process in terms of representation andwider accountability. However, as one senior key player in the NDC case studyexplains, demonstrating his pragmatism/ acceptance of this phenomenon, “Where I’ve got to personally in accepting, that there will always be a group of activists who’ll be, want to represent the community, and one of the dangers there is that they can be extreme activists as other NDC’s have discovered.”This idea that those who are involved are seen as community ‘activists’, and really‘unrepresentative’ of the wider ‘true’ community who are not involved, was arecurrent theme in both case studies. This was attributed to a) the ‘wider’ communityhaving no real interest in becoming involved and also b) the tendency of communityrepresentatives to act as gatekeepers within these participatory spheres.8 As one seniorkey player in the PB case study explains, “..the local community leaders dominate the process, information is a source of power, excluding other participants…. They have started to have authoritarian conduct because once the councillor is in the council, he/she has access to decisions and important questions. There is a tendency to no longer make decisions in consultation with the community, or share information…”The implications of key players’ perceptions of community representatives as somesort of unrepresentative elite are crucial when considering the extent to which keyplayers take community representatives within these spheres, seriously. If they areperceived as some sort of self-selected ‘activist’ elite, it almost becomes legitimate, todisregard the views of ‘community representatives’ on the grounds of representation.Another narrative predominant within these participatory spheres expressed by keyplayers was their concern to reach out to the ‘wider community’ beyond ‘communityactivists’ identified in both case studies. As one senior manager explained,8 See section in this chapter entitled ‘Gatekeeping’. 9

10.
“..the challenge is to actually involve the wider community…you always get a key group of people, who will put themselves up for everything, who’ll champion whatever, …it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ve got the views and the wider remit of all the community..”Key players in the NDC case study, however, also utilised a discourse of ‘community’that implied some sort of homogenous entity. This concept is crucial in terms ofrepresentation if we look at how ideas of homogeneity can negate the need for therepresentation of different groups within these spheres. In the NDC context, thehomogeneity of ‘the community’ seemed to be stressed when convenient, by keyplayers whom placed emphasis on ideas of consensus. An assumption about thehomogeneity of the community meant that working with only a few communityrepresentatives, was constructed as legitimate whilst consensus was more easilyreached. As one senior manager claims when asked about the relationship betweensenior management and community representatives, “..the relationship between residents and professionals has been excellent, so we’ve had very few disputes, if any, em and there has been a very strong synergy between us all really, and from my viewpoint it means that if I’m ever challenged by someone on the estate who says, eh, I don’t believe you, or, which happened in the early years, it was very easy for me to say, well, you ought to speak to, for example, Alan Greendale, who lives on the estate or, Alice Farmer, who lives on the estate, well, I’m employed by them, and that changed perceptions dramatically.”Here, the involvement of two community representatives and their legal position interms of employing senior management is seen as an important legitimating strategy ofthe programme to the wider community. One can see how ideas of a ‘homogenous’community can be extremely convenient for key players who are trying to balance thecommunity involvement demands of the programme with the necessity to deliveroutcomes. Interestingly, he cites the relationship between ‘residents’ [in general, thusindicating numerous] and ‘professionals’ ‘has been excellent’, however later goes on tohighlight two specific community representatives and explains how their involvementcan be utilised by the regeneration programme to legitimate its actions to the widercommunity. 10

11.
Consensus, Conflict and The Representation of Minority GroupsIn the NDC case study the idea of a perceived homogeneity of residents and thesubsequent emphasis on consensus was seen to be problematic from the point of viewof projects whose remit was to represent the voices of minority groups.9 For example,the Women’s Centre was seen to be grappling with these issues, not only in terms ofinside the decision making forum, but also in reference to “putting a strong feministproject, in a very traditional community”. A key player from this project continues,“there have been all sort of obstacles and barriers because of that, and it’s been aconstant challenge to restate the case, and well, you know, women shouldn’t be athome looking after the kids, unless they choose to do, you know, they are not forced tobe there, and if they want to get some education, and if they want to go out to work,then it’s their choice, those very simple messages are very threatening to a paternalisticculture.” The notion of a predominantly homogenous community feeding into adominant paternalistic ‘consensus’ was seen to have practical implications for therepresentation of voice for those groups representing minority groups, (in this case theWomen’s Centre) in the decision-making forum. As one key player explains, “we wrote it into to our service level agreement, that we wanted one representative on the board…who’d attend meetings, feedback and share information, …. so I went along because I was nominated from here, and em, on the first meeting, that I attended, happened to be one where [resignation] letters were read out….so I asked a question that if women from the Women’s Centre want to be a resident board member what’s the process? And the response was well, we haven’t got one…. Two or three weeks later I got a letter saying that when I come to the board meetings, I wasn’t allowed to sit at the table, and Alan will decide whether or not I can speak, (laughs) so obviously we challenged that (laughs) so we wrote back saying well, that won’t do, and could we have a namecard please, .. and then the whole debate came up, saying whether the Women’s Centre should actually have a place on the board, despite the fact they’d already agreed to it… so it’s up in the air, I mean we go along to board meetings but we aren’t allowed to speak, and em, they are deciding whether or not we should have a voice”.9 Although women comprise roughly 50% of the population, historically in democratic theory theyhave been classified under the term ‘minority groups’ as a recognition of their ‘lack of voice’/‘influence’ in a patriarchal society. 11

12.
The idea of the feasibility of reaching some sort of consensus was challenged in the PBcase study whereby community representatives explained the essentially conflictualnature of the process. One community representative explains, the role of the delegatein the following terms, “you fight, you have to fight as a delegate, so this is important,we fight and fight, to take each public work that they need, so this is the role of thedelegate… the delegate participates in the FROP, this is where the delegates fightagainst the other delegates, the other associations, to negotiate…if you have an intenseparticipation, you forget other communities..”. This institutionalised mechanism ofmanaging conflict in the battle over scarce resources was viewed in a variety ofdifferent ways, and was interestingly only articulated by the community representativesin this case study. Key players did not draw attention to this element of the process.Those community representatives who were currently present in the participatorysphere, and were relative ‘newcomers’ to the process cited this elementunproblematically as a ‘mere’ fact of the process. However, ex-communityrepresentatives in this case study, who had been previously involved, were keen toemphasise how these developments, i.e. the institutionalisation of conflict, weredetrimental to the long term interests of community representatives. 10 “So you lose, the links, each delegate or councillor, and they fight with one another, and instead of the people fighting for more money, you fight together for a small amount of money, so you pit one community against another, and everyone thinks that you battle to discuss a health post, or a school, there is nothing unfairer than this, no? So, imagine, the people themselves, have to choose what is more important, a school, or a health post? And no-one questions the theme that we must ask for more money so we can have both things. We have the right for the school and for the post. But this, is not discussed. The theme of this much money, and with this we have to do everything and this is divided and divided and divided…”The idea of a ‘harmonious, consensual’ participatory process was not only challengedby a discussion of ‘conflict’ within the process, but the ‘undemocratic’ conduct ofrepresentatives within these spheres was also highlighted. It is to this theme we knowturn.10 The autonomous independent popular councils, i.e. the União de Vilas was almost renderedobsolete by the creation of a parallel body, the FROP, the local government’s forum of delegates. Thisdevelopment was cited by various community representatives in this case study as the loss of solidarityin the process. 12

13.
Gatekeeping, Wider Representation or Depth of KnowledgeGatekeeping and the authoritarian conduct of community representatives wasinterestingly enough, one of the few themes articulated as an issue by intervieweeswithin all four data sub sets. Both key players and community representatives in bothcase studies saw it as a major problem in terms of a) the development of theparticipatory sphere and b) preventing wider accountability and involvement in thesespheres. Recognition of ‘gatekeeping’ and the ‘undemocratic’ conduct of participantswithin these spheres, has been a major issue in terms of the literature which focuses onthe ‘undemocratic’ nature of these participatory spheres. However, some communityrepresentatives were keen to explain this phenomenon in terms of it a) being a perfectlyunderstandable reaction to the amount of demands placed on communityrepresentatives and b) providing a useful pretext for the authorities to insist on a systemof representation based on rotation. This was seen to have the effect of diluting powerfrom the community representatives as a whole. This process was also be seen asbeing fuelled by key players emphasis on community ‘leadership’ whereby thosecommunity representatives involved in these spheres became increasingly divorcedfrom their bases. This section will therefore be based on all four data sub-sets, and willtry to highlight the various similarities and differences in both the conceptions andperceptions of this phenomenon.In the PB case study, community representatives who had become involved in theprocess more recently highlighted the various problems that they’d faced in trying toenter the process. Those newer to the process identified that some participantspreviously involved for a substantial amount of time were more reluctant to wideningthe spaces of participation. Raul de Silva explains that “the older ones built thecommunity movement, in Vila Cruzeiro, built the movement for Porto Alegre, ..so ofcourse you’ve got to respect them, no?, but there is also a tendency to want to keephold of the control and not let newcomers in”. Thus Martin Souza, a community 13

14.
representative in this case study explains his ‘traumatic’ entrance into the participatorysphere, as a result of participants’ desires of retaining the space for themselves, “…It was…very traumatic. It was because…there are people who have a history inside the community movement, and sometimes, they have a tendency of not opening up space for the new ones. There is a corporatism between the older ones, who came from the outside,, and they are disposed to blocking participation.. and I ended up suffering these kind of pre-conceptions.. some were taking the benefits to three or four communities, and others were losing out,… ”A similar phenomenon was identified in the NDC case study by various communityrepresentatives. One community representative discusses the reasons behind thedecision to bypass the residents association as the primary body to select candidates forthe board, “I think it might have been a conscious decision of some of the boardmembers… because they were frightened they’d lose…the fear of being taken off, ofbeing kicked off”. When talking about the current board, a former board memberexplained the implications of this phenomena in relation to decision-making, “but theydo tend to just make decisions just to keep themselves in power, the top two or three,want to be there all their lives”. One community representative currently on the boardis keen to point out how, decision-making and ‘power’ seems to be identified with acertain individual, i.e. a community representative on the board, “the resident boardmembers love to think they’ve got the power, but they haven’t, they haven’t got thepower, there is one person on that board, according to that board, and that is *****, andthat has got to stop.” In this case study, an analysis of interview transcripts doesindicate that there did seem to be a general consensus of both communityrepresentatives and key players, as to which community representatives in this spherewielded the most influence. In the case of key players, mere reference to theseindividuals was constant, they were often referred to in a variety of different ways,more often than not, hailed as positive examples of community involvement. Othercommunity representatives, however, seemed to be more scathing of the influence thatsuch a small number of individuals were able to have within this sphere. 14

15.
Although this issue was identified by both community representatives and key playersas a problematic element of these participatory spaces, it was seen as understandable bya variety of interviewees in terms of how these elements have evolved in terms of thevery functioning of these participatory spaces. One community representative explainsthe ‘undemocratic’ behaviour as regards the great amount of demands placed on acommunity representative. Meanwhile, accusations of ‘gatekeeping’ and the‘undemocratic’ discourse that surrounds these spaces was also seen as a useful pretextutilised by the governing authority to undermine the potential collective accumulativeknowledge of the community movement. It is also easy to see how, from the point ofview of key players, working with a small number of known, competent,knowledgeable community representatives is an attractive, feasible option in terms ofdelivering results. The response by one community representative in the Porto Alegrecontext, to charges of the undemocratic nature and authoritarian conduct of certaincommunity leaders, was that it is almost necessary to be authoritarian in order tofunction effectively in this environment. She challenges the notion that communityrepresentatives have to live up to some sort of ‘democratic ideal’ which seems to beunattainable and contrasts this with a recognition of the day to day practice ofcommunity organisation, “the authoritarian.. community leader, is the most common thing in the world, you have to co-ordinate the community, understand? Attending two or three demands a day, and for this you need to be very authoritarian, if you are not, you wouldn’t be able to co-ordinate everything… and the people say, he shouldn’t be authoritarian, the people who don’t have to be authoritarian, are the mayor…the secretaries… they don’t have a motive to be authoritarian, now the guy in the community, who has to organise a mountain of things, he has every reason to be authoritarian..”Community representatives in both case studies identified a fundamental tensionbetween wider representation, i.e. a rotational system of representation, and thenecessity of the accumulation of knowledge to be able to function effectively in thesespheres. A rotational system of representation is present in the institutionalmechanisms of the PB process, developed to prevent ‘gatekeeping’ and domination ofthe process by any few individuals, i.e. one can’t be a councillor for more than twoterms. In the NDC case study, this issue has also been discussed and debated, and has 15

16.
had procedural institutional implications. The institutional mechanisms within theNDC in terms of rotational representation seemed to be at a developmental stage withinthe organisation. For example, after the second elections on the estate (whereby twelveresidents stood for twelve places and therefore the elections were cancelled) it wassubsequently decided “that every ,,, I can’t remember now, every two years, or every year, you had to stand down and somebody else had to… that’s what they originally decided and then they sat down and thought about it, well wait a minute if all twelve people stand down, it isn’t going to work, you’re going to suddenly have a board, and then you ain’t going to have a board, and you’re going to have twelve new members who didn’t know what they where doing, and so then they decided well, maybe only four stand down…. Well that was what the NDC said they wanted , because they had like twelve board members who are trained, ..they didn’t want it like the night of the long knives and lose all the trained board members in one go….”Community representatives in the PB case study saw the development of institutionalmechanisms to ensure rotational representation extremely cynically, i.e. as an attemptby the local authority to effectively undermine the capacity of the communitymovement and enable the local authority to retain the upper hand in this sphere. Asone community representative explains, “they created a rule so that you can’t be acouncillor more than twice, so if it is someone who doesn’t know how it works verywell, they get manipulated… because they [the government] know how the machineworks…”. Another community representative was keen to point out the disparitybetween the accumulated knowledge, capacity and resources of government workersand the knowledge and resources of community representatives; “Because the government doesn’t change.. the guy who coordinates the budget is the same, he is always the same, he’s been there and knows everything about the budget, because he’s been there 2, 6, 8, 10 years, understand, and the community in the first year… a community leader who takes part in the PB, he is a worker, who has to take care of his family, who has to take into account attending to his community, and who has to take part in the PB, so it’s very unequal, and after, when you challenge, and say something is wrong, they say it’s the fault of the community representative, and this is the government guy who is always the same, …that has a room at his disposition, a telephone at his disposition, a salary, there all the administration is done, the role of the community representative has to work, has his family, has to coordinate the community, has to manage the budget and he has to do everything right…” 16

17.
The emphasis on community ‘leaders’ and leadership by key players, in both thesespaces could also be said to have fuelled this phenomenon, creating a wider gapbetween those community representatives/’ ‘leaders’ and the wider ‘community’ thatthey are supposedly representing. As one key player, who runs training programmesfor community representatives, (independent of the local authority) in the PB casestudy eloquently explains, “more recently we are facing another kind of problem, the community leaders …eh sometimes they became like professional citizens… we usually work at the base level, so we fortified a group of community leaders and what happened to that group, they started being invited by the government, by all the political parties to work for them, professionally, so the city hall has a lot of community leaders to work as community advisors…so the process was intended to fortify the direct participation, the common citizen participation, and instead of that we saw it was working as a selection of elites….we are now making an effort to work more at the base level because we want to fortify the process of participation…”ConclusionThis chapter has attempted to question at the theoretical and empirical level one of themost common assumptions in the network governance literature on the straightforwardlink between participation and representation. Despite the differences in the casestudies as regards the clarity of conceptions and institutional mechanisms ofrepresentation, similar issues emerged within both case studies that highlighted thecomplexity and ambiguous relationship between participation and representation. Keyplayers described community representatives in terms of either ‘activists’ (hence‘unrepresentative’) or the ‘true community’, (hence ‘representative’) and used theseterms as discursive strategies to either legitimise or delegitimise communityrepresentatives within these spheres. Homogeneity and consensus could be seen as intension with the representation of minority groups as different voices challenged thenotion of homogeneity within the NDC participatory sphere. Gatekeeping was not onlyexplained in terms of preventing wider representation as is the usual conception of theterm however was linked to facilitating an accumulated knowledge by community 17

18.
representatives. Rotational representation was seen as diluting community knowledgeof how participatory institutions functioned and thus weakening the position ofcommunity representatives vis-à-vis government or professional workers. Theseempirical findings of two participatory spheres highlight the complexity of howconcepts such as representation and participation are played out on the ground by arange of different actors. The assumed linked between representation and moreparticipatory forms of governance must be questioned and empirically explored if morevoices are to be heard within these spheres.BibliographyAbers, R. (1996) ‘From Ideas to Practice: The Partido dos Trabalhadores andParticipatory Governance in Brazil’, Latin American Perspectives, 91.23.4, 35-53.Abers, R. (1997) Inventing Local Democracy Neighbourhood Organising andParticipatory Policy-Making in Porto Alegre, Brazil, Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia (unpublished PHD thesis).Barber, B. (1984) Strong Democracy, Berkeley: University of California Press.Bobbio, N. (1996) Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction,Cambridge: Polity Press.Cornwall, A. and Coelho, V. (2007) Spaces for Change?: The Politics of CitizenParticipation in New Democratic Arenas, London: Zed Books.Dryzek, J. (1990) Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Foley, P., and Martin, S. (2000) ‘A New Deal for the Community? Public Participationin Urban Regeneration and Local Service Delivery’, Policy and Politics. 28,4, 479-91.Gaventa, J. (2004) ‘Representation, Community Leadership and Participation: CitizenInvolvement in Neighbourhood Renewal and Local Governance’, Draft Paper preparedfor the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, Brighton, IDS.Held, D. (1987) Models of Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.Lawless, P. (2004) Locating and explaining area-based urban initiatives: New Deal forCommunities in England, Environment and Planning: Government and Policy 22, 3,383 – 399. 18